This kind of thing has been expected - part of Immigration Enforcement. Very unprofessional to say the least. EU citizens must realise they now count as "normal" immigrants. EUSS give a few advantages over others but nevertheless it's part of the UK immigration rule book. Where as other m...

That is not correct, as the UKVI which is part of the. Home Office, controls the EUSS.

Why do you want to complicate things? Home Office did not ask you about that, the application for Biometrics is not an Immigration application, you have not been convicted or cautioned about anything.

Not sure what you want to tell Home Office about.

You are not alone, I am aware of some late 2019 applications which are still pending.

19 months is quite a long time, but I am pleased you have succeeded in the end.

How long was left before expiry, when the decision came in today?

Did you have an active stamp 4 at the time of decision?

Was your family member a British citizen?

Why are you thinking the worst will happen? What did you apply for?

They have put it on you guys and protected themselves.

I believe the point is academic as you now qualify under section 6(1), however even if you were not living together as a couple, but were simply married, you would have qualified under section 6(2), as that provision does not require subsisting relationship, suffices that you are married.

What do you do with a lawless department that does not follow law, you fight them back.

A friend of mine got a court order banning the deportation of a man to Jamaica, he has no option but to fight back for his return.

I am not questioning choices. My point is she is entitled to have both application and should not be compelled to withdraw one application.

The Home Office have told the court that Zambrano applicant can have multiple applications. So there is reason for them to put her in that position.

Is your lawyer not aware of the binding consent order signed at the high Court. He should be on top of his game.

There is no reason to withdraw any application, as Home Office said it will not be necessary.

You must challenge adverse decisions within 3 months or you will forfeit the right to do so.

Well, you are not the only person whose PAP was refused, so i do not think your solicitor should be blamed for that. I was actually waiting for a resistance as well, and was surprised to receive an undertaking to reconsider.

My suspicion is that they will lose and lose miserably one way or the other.

Well I believe Pre-acttion protocol and a threat of JR may be a quiker resolution.

I sent 1 PAP for a similar issue, they replied undertaking to review within 12 weeks, so it may be the case that all people in similar case will not have to go for JR, as JR is timely and cost incurring.

If the Home Office is invalidating Residence card during transition period, then that is unlawful.
As a person can have UK residence card in tandem with other residence card.

My understanding is old residence card are valid until expiry. That is the current position of their ever changing policy.

It can be done and i know of it in many cases, once the minister is made aware of the law, you will be permitted to go to the immigration office alone.

That is correct. EU3 is for people still married, even if separated.
If due to separation the form cannot be filled, this can be explained in a cover letter to the minister.

Is your husband still in the state and working.

If he is, then you have no need to worry.


The refusal is correct, only spouses who are now divorce qualifies for retention.

I am of the view that Akinsanya does not assist much in a case involving an application for DRC under the EEA Regulation 2016. Akinsanya seem to affect EU settlement scheme applications, where the Home Office implemented a provision precluding people with leave to remain from qualifying. In Akinsany...

This application should be straightforward. The FTT erred in considering Regulation 16(6) as applicable to the appeal,as that provision relates to the dependent of the primary carer, and has no relevance to the primary carer themselves. The regulations only precludes primary carer if they are exempt...